My dear friend! Now I want to generalize different things that we discussing many times, that make some gap and recombination in the structure of materialist and communist world-vision that we follow. Immediately materialist thought is same the way that consequense from scientific cognition, practical apropriation and aesthetic enjoyment of the real world, because it is material in its ground and in its effects. Before I prefere to represent my thought in more cartesian manner, in rigoreous order of logical and argumentation, clear and distinct. But order of exposition of philosophy, and order of thought itself is different. Real thought is more chaotic beast that alien in famous film of John Carpenter, where in ice frozen planetary desert flowing matters is break fragile surfaces of humanized bodies.

Its notable, that in conservative and reactionary discourse one of the most terrible appearances of contemporary progress is the concept of dehumanization or make-unhuman. That imply that human shape is final and perfect, and its transcendence may only descend and degradation — secular version of judeo-christian myth about "human nature" that were created in "image and likeness" of god Yahwe. Therefore progressive transition beyond human condition is inconceivable in humanist worldview that is the last bastion of bourgeois ideology today.

Philosophy in Ancient Greece begins with critique of greek ideology — mytho-religious (mis)understanding of the world. Philosophy in Modern Time begins with principle of Radical Doubt by Rene Descartes that subverse ground of european christianity. Marxist philosophy was direct attack on idea of eternity and naturality of capitalism and human nature. Therefore contemporary philosophy should begins with critique of contemporary ideologies, forms of false consciousness that has place today in our life, in activities and structures of our society.

Idea of human as rational conscious subject with free will in singular and closed body is the general myth of our time, that were subversed by discoveries in economy, sociology, psychology, linguistics and other social sciences. And philosophers now divides in two parties — who is follow and who is reject this scientific discoveries.

Now we know: all determined and there is no free will; consciousness is only momen in the motion of smart but unconscious social matter; all minds and bodies is systems that opened to the fluxes of stuff, energy and information that is flow in their plicatures.

Therefore humankind as society reduced to real volume of human bodies and-or possible volume of uman minds is never been.

This heresey against main dogmas of contemporary priests of capitalist system — and beginning of actual philosophy, its shibboleth.

So, it’s enough poetic style, let’s return to argumentation. I claim that today Vologda’s philosophy is not only possible, but also real, and I am ready to prove this logically, relying on the facts of real life and quotes from the greatest metaphilosophical book of the 20th century, "What is Philosophy?", written by none other than Gilles Deleuze himself, who equaled Marx in the power of his thought.

According Deleuze, philosophical assemblage is determined by three aspects: concepts, plane of consistence, and characters. My task is to show that all three components is present in Vologda region now, step by step, fact by fact — that showing gived in my speech may be sighted in your speech to third person, in his speech to fourth, and so on: that is speculative logic of philosophy in regime of communication. As remarking Deleuze and Guattary, speech is flow from subject to subject, without beginning and the end, always imply mutation and continuation in gaps of its continuity. So, let’s begin.

1. Concept

Concept is word that bring philosophic sense — that will be correct definition in Deleuzian methodology. But his viewpoint is limited because take concepts singulary, without their relation to other concepts, and outconceptual conditions of their being. Therefore I understand that it is only initial, not ultimate view on object of philosophical activity. More concrete will be understanding of philosophical activity as an assemblage where singular concepts unites into system of relations; and in deconstruction of systems fall out of them, breaking relations that bind elements.

But what is the concepts or system I mean, whan I talk about Vologda’s philosophy? In prime approximation, Vologda’s philosophy is set of concepts, singular and systematic, that has place in Vologda region. That is true but incomplete definition should be unfolded in its consequences.

Factually, there is many professional philosophers in Vologda, who has PhD’s in this discipline, and read lectures in universities. But should we to equate diplomate philosopher, John Doe or Richard Roe with PhD’s in philosophy — and worldwide famous philosophers, conceptual inventors from Philosophy Handbooks, that is studied in university cathedras? It seems that is large difference between academic and real philosopher in their activity and modus vivendy.

It’s a fact — there is many academic philosophers as reproductors of limited philosophic discours in Vologda region — but there is no real philosophers as producers of new concepts and conceptual systems, except me.

Therefore, my philosophy may be named Vologda’s philosophy in the same formal reason as Socrates philosophy may ba named Athenian philosophy. City (πολις) as a place-and-time (χρωνοτοπ) of life and thought of philosopher. But what is my philosophy?

In American journalist culture has place usually question: what is your personal philosophy? I can answer it in one sentence next way: "The world is material Nature, infinite in space and eternal in time; meaning of life is enjoyment, complex enrichment as its condition, and struggle against factors that hinder both". That is sentence-unfolding of concept of practical materialism. But what its folding is?

I came into philosophy 15 years ago, through break with religion and understanding reasons for studying philosophy at spring-summer 2010. Before it event my environment force me to belief in christian myths that was a weapon in hands of russian ruling class — opium for the people that paralyze their will to struggle for better life. But when I read and compare so called "sacred books" and christian apologetics, I understanded how many contradictions in this worldview, and between christianity and contemporary science. Moreover. That was strictly contradiction between christian commandments and real needs of young organism: tasty food, beauty images, clear thoughts, passionate sex, deep sleep and so on, was interpreted as a mortal sin for which a merciful god would torture you in hellfire for endless billions of years. Finally I understanded that christianity as and all religions is theoretically false and practically harmful doctrine and left religious delusions, turning into philosophical reflection.

1.1 Critique of religion and reflection of marxism (2010-2011)

I think after break with religion, what is my worldview now? Primary I start to read basic materialist books — fragmets of Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius' poem "De rerum Natura" etc. Here I should notice that basic materialism is antique atomism, not so-called "base materialism" of french philosopher George Bataille that is only reversed platonism where matter interpreted as "dirt, nail clippings" and same things understanded as base of the world and object-cause of desire.

To 2010's autumn I seen that antique materialism is limited in relation to contemporary science, practical life, aesthetic and philosophy itself. So, I turned to studying of marxism, because in my home library was richly represented books of Marx, Lenin and other progressive authors. At the same time I reflected my break with religion that was explained more systematically later in next articles:

1. The experience of faith and unbelief — a description of a personal path of assimilating religious concepts, experiencing them and liberating oneself from them.

2. From religion to atheism. Reading list — a list of books and authors useful for breaking with a religious worldview.

3. The essence of ideology — a reflection on the generating mechanisms of religious and, in general, ideological worldviews, based on the ideas of Meslier, Marx, Fraser and Dawkins.

4. The history of ideology — a reflection on the stages of development of an ideological worldview: from magic to religion and to modern humanism.

5. Towards understanding ideology. Reading list — a list of philosophical and scientific literature useful for a more accurate understanding of the theory of ideology.

1.2 The first systematization of materialism. Ontognoseology (2012-2014)

At the next stage, after two years of reading of marxist and philosophic books, I think: what is a marxist philosophy, dialectical materialism, as a system? The main contradiction that I meet in marxist literature — is true idea that materialism is developable theory that includes all treasures of human culture — and factual absense of this development! All "orthodox marxists" that I meet in circles and parties, was ignorant and bore dogmatists who even do not read adolescent books of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Many "old communists" was etatists and familialists, belief in religious and nationalist superstitions, defend "creative little busines" — i.e. useless and almost dead petty bourgeoisie. Their ignorance and stupidity was symmetrical to ignorance and stupidity vulgar deleuzianists who eclectically combine ideas of anticonsumerism, ecologism, activism, inimicocentrism, object-oriented ontology, liberation theology, market socialism with human face and other useless metaphysical garbage.

So, I think: can I make new synthesis between antique, modern, marxist and post-structuralist philosophy as the next stage in development of materislism? My curiosity and ambition force me to research in this way, and in two years I writed approximately 30 articles on materialist ontology and gnoseology that establish primary corelation between ideas of Marx and Deleuze, Plato and Baudrillar, Descartes and Tugarinov, Hegel and Lenin, etc. This collection named "Substance and reflection" ("Субстанция и отражение" — more correctly it may be translated as "Substance and mirroring" or "Substance and impressing", because in russian language there is distinction between reflection as verification of correlated thoughts and reflection as mirroring, transition of shape of one object to another, and marxist theory of reflection is mean strictly secondary sense) was writed into a table because my critical mentation that follow me to the next stage of philosophizing.

1.3 Reflection of ontognoseology. Proof of matter (2014-2015)

One of the most crying defects of dogmatic materialism was absense of clear and distinct proof of existence of the matter and materiality of the world. Usually dogmatic marxists refers to famous Lenin’s definition: "Matter is a philosophical category denoting objective reality which is given to man in his sensations, and which is copied, photographed and reflected by our sensations, while existing independently of them". But this gnoseologic definition obviousley incomplete and it is not proof, because essense of "objective reality which is given to man in his sensations" may be not material, but ideal. For example, if cause of our sensations is some ideal entity — god, worldwide will, buddhist emptiness or some like that, we should to admit material god, worldwide will or shunyata, that make concept of materialism senseless.

Solution of this problem was finded in crossection of Cartesian principle of radical doubt and concepts of Leningrad ontologic school of soviet version of dialectical materialism. Leningrad philosophers like Tugarinov and Svidersky develop materialism in opposition to dogmatic epistemological thought of Ilyenkovist school where materialism and marxism mixed with positivist and neo-kantian metaphysics. Product of this reflection was line of 4 articles, in last edition piublished as:

1. On the General Question of Philosophy — an article about how a materialistic solution to the fundamental question of philosophy is possible from the point of view of the method of radical doubt.

2. The General, the Particular, the Singular — an article about the role of the categories of the general, the particular, and the singular in the system of dialectical materialism.

3. Matter as a subject-substance — an article about how the activity of a material substance is constituted from the point of view of the difference between dialectical and aleatory materialism.

4. Materialism, Empiricism, and Rationalism. Part 1 — an article about the materialistic reassembly of the new European sources of Marxist philosophy in the teachings of René Descartes and George Berkeley.

Therefore I formulated a proof of materiality of the world and started to unfold line of consequenced concepts. But this was not a System — there was not initial principle, primary concept, and line of critique led to nowhere.

1.4 The second systematization of materialism. Systemic marxism (2016-2018)

Then I think: theory should be based on the history of marxism and worldwide philosophy. In this was I take my early article, Evolution of marxism, and make reflection over it. The product of this reflection become a fourfold structure of marxism as a system, that was formulated in next theses:

"1. Synchronically, Marxism includes three structural levels: ideology, philosophy, science — and the trajectory of transition between them, known to my readers from the article "On Philosophical Methodology". Marxism is not only a science — and in this sense it is universal, unfolding in the space of the discourse of the university, speaking on behalf of secondary knowledge; but also an ideology, and in this sense it is singular, unfolding in the space of the master discourse, speaking on behalf of the primary signifier. The space of the gap between the two is constituted by Marxist philosophy, relating to the philosophical discourse, speaking regarding the truth of the being of beings. The movement of transition between them is produced by mediation in the form of a libidinal arc intersecting three levels of Generalities congruent with the three levels of the scheme of thought-activity.

2. Diachronically, Marxism realizes its structure as an expanding graph of interdisciplinary syntheses, splitting with each new synthesis into a direction that follows the new synthesis and the possibilities it suggests — and directions that follow the preceding syntheses. The consequence of this is the accumulation in Marxism of directions that are increasingly lagging behind the newest syntheses and increasing the inadequacy of the system to the current spectrum of problems as a whole. At the same time, the increasing splitting of Marxism into many directions, along with the accumulation in the advanced ones of ever greater synthetic complexity, creates an environment favorable for a new reflexive synthesis, or the conversion of a sequence of syntheses to its own diachronic structure, redefined as a system.

3. The diachronic structure of Marxism has a virtual dimension — in other words, every event of supplementing Marxism with new elements that are synthesized with those already given, occurs on the basis of these possibilities of synthesis and transformation, leading to their further extension. The virtual dimension of Marxism is a spectrum of possibilities with which any equivalent of Marxism, the number of which is greater than one, can be collected, supplemented and redefined with each new addition. The study of the virtual possibilities of supplementing and transforming Marxism will allow us to note and present for collective solution a multitude of possibilities and problems that were not realized and not thought of in the course of blind development, having engaged in the purposeful development of Marxism as a system.

4. The implementation of the virtual dimension of Marxism occurs along a synchronic trajectory of transition, whose final product is a supplemented and improved space of strategies of class struggle and a set of Marxist ideologies corresponding to this diversity of strategies, that is, teachings and purposeful actions for the transformation of the world. The goal of systematic Marxism is the standardization and coordination of the stages of the trajectory of production of as many new communist teachings as possible, required by the contradictions of late capitalism."

But as and many previous works, it was writed into a table, because has no reaches point of initial principle of systematization.

1.5 Reflection of the concept of assemblage (2018-2023)

Finally, at the end of 2018's year I finded desired concept in Guattari’s "Schizoanalytic cartographies": assemblage. And the nex five yaers was a process of clarification and distinctialization of meaning of this concept in contrast with humanist or anthropomorphine markup of reality. Articles that was writed at this stage was immeditely published on Syg.ma, and it was bright sign that I move on the true way:

1. Jumping over the threshold — a reworked letter to a comrade about the structure and crossing of the threshold of the Oedipal stratification of the capitalist unconscious as a condition for the thinkability and feasibility of the end of capitalism.

2. Schizoanalysis. Four aspects of assemblage — a study of the logic of constructing the basic schizoanalytic scheme — the process of connecting and disconnecting objects and spaces taken separately and in systems of interaction

3. Towards a materialist categorization — an article about the possibility of a materialist system of categories in light of the history of philosophy, starting with the distinction between concepts, categories and existentials in Deleuze’s metaphilosophy.

4. Being and activity — an article about the mutual correspondence of the categories of Heidegger’s fundamental ontology and Vygotsky’s theory of activity in the context of the deconstruction of the human gestalt.

5. The front side of human interfaces — an article on the further deconstruction of the humanist representation of society from the point of view of the materialism of assemblages, the fundamental ontology of Heidegger and the theory of activity of Vygotsky.

But all this articles was writed in the same algorhitm of infinitely assiptotic approximation to endpoint of critique/reflection that never reaches it. Breakthrough was the nex article writed in the logic of immediately transition to final system:

6. Assemblage concept — encyclopedic description of the key concept of contemporary materialist ontology.

1.6 The third systematization of materialism: 2023-2025

After publication of russian version of this article at 01.11.2023, I was focusing on the systematization of implicit intuitions that consequenced from my understanding on definition of initial concept: "Assemblage is a process of generation, distribution (logical, factual and hybrid connection, interaction and separation) and destruction of objects and spaces existing separately and in systems of relations.". The result was ready in 9 months and published on 30.07.2024 as longread article "On development of materialist philosophy" that includes next parts:

Introduction. The crisis of modern metaphysics. The main topic of the introduction is the dead-end nature of most areas of modern philosophy, not realized by their proponents, but obvious when viewed from the outside.

1. History of philosophy or syntagmatics. The first part examines the way of presenting existing philosophical teachings, from which we can draw examples of how to philosophize and how not to philosophize. The material for further development was taken from the Soviet six-volume "History of Philosophy" edited by Dynnik, 1957-65, and the monograph by Randall Collins "Sociology of Philosophy". The first work gives a panorama of the development of philosophy, coming from abstract being to a strong connection with the practice of the struggle for global stateless communism. The second work gives an overview of the development of philosophical teachings at the microsocial level, coming to university institutionalization.

2. Ontology. The second part examines the derivation of the system’s key categories from the history of philosophy (ancient atomism, the ideas of Guattari and Deleuze, the Leningrad school of dialectical materialism), as well as their figurative unfolding.

The concept of assemblage, unfolded in eleven derivative schemes that collapse groups of 32 concepts, is taken as the main category of the system. The first three groups are based on the concept of the Soviet philosopher V. P. Tugarinov on the classification of categories into the groups "Thing-Property-Relation", to which the group of categories "Cause" is added. This is followed by more complex schematizations expressing the processual existence of assemblies.

In total, this section schematically describes 382 dialectical and materialistic concepts, which is significantly more than any Marxist philosopher has managed to do.

3. Critique of ideologies and metaphysics. The third section is a continuation and generalization of one of the key lines of my philosophy. At the beginning, an expansion of the criteria of metaphysics as an inadequate philosophy is given; then the essence of ideology is examined in more detail — the totality of social relations that generate various forms of false consciousness, the history and classification of ideologies, and finally humanism as the dominant type of false consciousness today, expressing the frustration of the masses in the face of the uncontrollable forces of market anarchy of production.

Next come three sections devoted to applied philosophy — gnoseology, ethics and aesthetics, that is, philosophy in application to science, politics and art, respectively.

4. Gnoseology. The fourth section is devoted to the theory of scientific knowledge, or gnoseology. The relationship of philosophy with the scientific picture of the world, with the scientific method, is one of the most important signs of its adequacy. This part addresses two interrelated issues — the issue of the subject of knowledge and the issue of the object of knowledge.

5. Ethics. The fifth section is devoted to ethics and is an application of the system of categories to the practice of political and technical change of the world. This part addresses two interrelated issues — the issue of the subject of practice and the issue of its subject.

It is essential that ethics is structured symmetrically to the theory of knowledge, so that the subject of knowledge and the subject of action are the same assemblies taken in different relationships; also, the subject of ethical action is the same as the object of knowledge, but taken in a different relationship.

6. Aesthetics. The sixth part deals with the application of the system of categories to the practice of artistic representation of the world, as well as the aesthetic expressiveness of things themselves. Just as epistemology and ethics form a symmetrical pair, aesthetics is also symmetrical to the general ontology set out in the second section. Everything that is described in ontology by means of the concepts of the second signal system is sensually perceived in aesthetics at the level of the first signal system, at the level of immediate sensation (whose immediacy, of course, exists as the removal of the instrumental mediation through which the world in society is given to us).

The scheme of assemblages, as applied to aesthetics, takes on the meaning of the scheme of gestalt — the dialectical unity of figures and backgrounds, given separately and in compositions of perception.

7. Methodology. The seventh part is devoted to methodology as an application of the system of categories to the practice of its own development. This part is built around a general methodological scheme describing the functioning of philosophical discourse at three levels — micro, meso and macro, and based on the ideas of René Descartes, Gilles Deleuze and Louis Althusser respectively. It is presented in more detail in Russian in the article "On Philosophical Practice, Part 1", and its revised and expanded translation, published under the title "On Philosophical Methodology", formed the basis of this section.

The main idea of ​​the method is that the functioning of philosophy at each level is a closed cycle of changing mental positions, ensuring the speculative accumulation of surplus knowledge and methods, operationally isolated from other systems of social practices (science, politics, art, etc.), and due to this gap, capable of connecting with them, forming feedback loops that strengthen each of the associated assemblies.

Conclusion. Towards a Philosophical Encyclopedia. The conclusions that follow from the system of materialism, presented in this way, relate to many things, but in the text I have stopped only at two of them:

First, on the plan of development of the initial system — that is, the step-by-step detailing of the presented seven sections, with an increasingly clear and distinct elaboration of the constituent elements, which in the limit forms an encyclopedia of philosophical materialism.

Second, on the plan of development of derivative systems — that is, systems formed by reassembling the system of concepts of dialectical materialism of assemblages in relation to a particular problem formed by one of the gaining strength blocks of social revolution, and grasped by the corresponding concept.

At the same time, beyond the scope of consideration remained, among other things, the consideration of the possibility of a third generation of systems based on various forms of interblockality, that is, on groups of feedback loops arising between the blocks of the revolutionary formation of society.

Finally, the idea of the multisystemic nature of materialism, which can and should be captured not in one, but in many systems that form an ordered set of elements and are correlated with different regions of social practices, remains outside of consideration.

1.7 Communication (2025-now)

Now my system of materialist philosophy is complete in a whole. And according General methodological scheme, we should go from systematization to communication. Therefore my thought must be presented in communicative field as something concrete, that is different from various forms of previous materialism. That is the question, because previous materialism is a basis of my philosophy. But situation is clarifying in more escalate perspective.

Marxist materialism declares as sublation of Hegel’s absolute dialectical idealism. But really in thougth of Marx and Engels there is not clear and disticnt explantion no essence of dialectic, nor infinity and eternity of Nature, not even proof of existence of matter! What is — there is cohesion of faith that world is material with political practice of its change. In his time Marx’s and Engels’s invention was extremely effective. But latest development of materislist thought sublated the Marx’s method of ascending from abstract to concrete itself into Deleuze’s method of descending from concrete to abstract! So, is it theory of materialism as a sublation of Hegel’s system now is failed?

No way!

Really transition from Marx’s method of ascending from abstract to concrete to Deleuze’s method of descending from concrete to abstract is seems literally as sublation of Hegel’s categories of mechanism and chemism as moments of dialectic of Object. Really, category of mechanism means manifold of parts that is assembled into integred whole as marxist philosophy and practice is. At the same time chemism category means manifold of parts that is assembled in dissociated process as rhizomatic philosophy and practice of Deleuze & Guattari. In this situation third position, syn-thesis is stay vacant: teleology as manifold in assemblage process that fall to point of attraction in space of possibilities — aim. But this problematic is actual for my own philosophy — see, for example, Nomadology Manifesto, where conceprualize dialectic of aiming and final point of philosophy in a human condition — transition to condition of infinite changeability.

In other words, my take is: Hegel, Marx and Deleuze was great philosophers, but the time has come to surpass them; and the one who will complete the process of sublating absolute dialectical idealism into absolute dialectical materialism will be me.

You may ask: isn’t this too ambitious? I agree: yes, indeed, it is a great impudence to claim that you are going to surpass Hegel, Marx and Deleuze. However, if they surpassed their predecessors in their time, then someone will surpass them someday. Furthermore, if I, having carefully studied their works, modern science and philosophy, continue to develop my philosophy, then it will either be better or worse than theirs. If it is better, then I will thereby be of great benefit to world culture; if not, then it will still be better than if I had not set myself such a big goal.

The same is true in relation to the transhumanist transition: if we strive to crawl out of the human condition and become posthumans, we may of course not succeed — or we may win the struggle for an unlimited long life. However, if we resign ourselves and do not strive for this, we are guaranteed to achieve nothing.

After all, humility is not a philosophical, but a christian virtue. In religion, it is justified by the unattainable greatness of god, before whom we must endlessly repent of our sins, humbling our pride. But since there is no god, then before whom should we humble ourselves, and most importantly, why?

The great Dutch philosopher Spinoza wrote that ambition is a passion that intensifies all other affects. Thus, if an ambitious person gets along with drunkards, he will strive to outdrink them all; and if his friends are libertines, he will strive to surpass them in the number and frenzy of orgies. If I am characterized by ambition and curiosity, how can I not strive to surpass the smartest philosophers in world history? This would mean struggle against my own character — a senseless and empty matter.

So let us leave modesty to humanists and theolatrists! We, as materialists, can and should be guided not by moral prejudices, but by our own reason, logic and facts — the basis of a sound materialist worldview.

2. Plane

In Deleuzian theory concept of the plane is until interpreted metaphysically. Deleuze write in "What is philosophy?", that plane of immanence was appeared in Ancient Greece, in modern Britain, France and Germany, particulary — in USA and USSR. Well, but how we can registrate that in this or that territory appears plane of consistency, or it’s only empty speculations? How can we predict the probability of its appearance in a concrete territory, under certain conditions?

I suggest that we should begin with more correct and concrete definition of the concept:

Plane of consistency is a surface of production, distribution and sublation of social and cultural contradictions.

Obviously, contradictions, not only social and cultural, produced, distributed and sublated everywhere in this infinite Nature. Therefore plane of consistency as a virtual dimension of substance runs in any point of the space of Nature. Therefore Deleuze means not plane of consistency as such as a condition of philosophy, but plane of consistency of high intencity.

Thus, in secondary approximation Vologda’s philosophy is philosophy produced by sublation of social and cultural contradictions of Vologda region. Then to proof that Vologda’s philosophy is real, we should to show contradictions that determine it to existence.

1. And primary cultural contradiction common not only to Vologda but for all post-soviet area is contradiction between becoming global and descending national culture. All state patriots cries about greatness and christianity of contemporary russian culture is empty trembling of air. Contemporary technoscience that is a base of material life is global and english-speaking. All details of machines, computer programs and scientific researches is describes in global-english, and conservation of national languages is a brake on the path of progress. Certainly, change of usual language for 140 millions of russian citizens or 1,3 millions of citizens of Vologda region is not so fast process as we want. But in prospective of one hundred years its obviously that russian and many other cultures will be dissolved in global cosmopolitan space. Many young vologdanians learn and use English and other languages and apropriate contemporary cosmopolitan culture. All state laws and prohibitions can not stop this process, because it is invincible. As thouthand tears ago east-slavic tribes united into one russian people through the state, commerce and christian ideology, the same way all peoples of the planet unites into one association through the class struggle, automatization and materialist philosophy. My own philosophy is product of this tendency of sublation of national culture: my early articles was writed in russian; now I writing it in english, therefore my potential auditory extended in 50 times. My books will be published in russian, but we need translate their into common language where materialist thought will continue its development.

2. Contradiction between the social character of material production and the private character of the appropriation of the product. That is common contradiction for all capitalist formation find its expression in two forms of expropriation:

Primary, some large capitalists expropriate many little and non-effective capitalists in concurrent struggle by immanent laws of capitalist system;

Secondary, many propertyless workers expropriate some large capitalists.

This is two-tact process of "real movement which abolishes the present state of things" — i.e, communism or permanent revolution.

Here is a keypoint of our disagreement with dogmatic marxists, activists and other non-scientific enemies of capitalis system. For them capitalism is great, strong, global and totalitarian system that oppress and exploit billions of people and that may be sublate only external forces in extremely unique conditions; communism is a beauty but far utopian condition of common harmony that mayhaps become through hundred or thouthands years after we all will die and buried. For me as for you, for Marx and Engels capitalism is weak, contradictionary and thus temporal system which is daily swept away by the process of development of its own contradictions; communism is real process of progress through the struggle, research and implementation of new techno-social structures, that determine our life in present, not in the far future. And now, when all aspects of this progress is extremely accelerate, we should not to cry with activists, but rejouce and exalt in anticipation of the final defeat of capitalism and the establishment of global stateless communism across the planet.

Communism as a process is happend here and now, in Vologda, in Wall-Street, in TSMC — everywhere with development of productive forces and reassembling of production relations. And this development is promises sublation not only capitalist, but even human condition — technosocial singularity as authentic form of communist revolution. That’s why our slogan should be:

Singularity is near, communism is here!

3. Contradiction between necessity for authoritarian state to rule and control social processes — and growing complexity of this processes that is incompatible with the state as such. Really, existing states, not only Russian, strive to make society more controllable. But speed of techno-social changes that forced by growth of productive forces is more then growth of state control capacities. Therefore gap between social complexity and state control become more and more with every year. Bourgeoisie, the ruling class of contemporary states, lose hegemonian potential. It can not more includes mass movements into political system, that is like sieve for lines of flight. Nation-state form of organiztaion of society is obsolete. Mad laws and prohibitions that declare contemporary governments is the fruitful ground for revolutionary ideas and communist philosophy.

4. Contradiction between institution of the family and its objective and subjective conditions. Friedrich Engels writed in his ingenious and visionary book, that institutions of the family, private property and the state has own origin and will have their end. Today in Russia it is especially obvious and true. Bourgeois family is near to its end. Number of divorces is almost equal to number of marriages. Total powerty of russian and Vologda people make marriage and having children an extreme luxury. At the same time technosocial progress subverse subjective condition of marriage and family — oedipal stratification of subjectivity. Computers, smartphones, VR-devices and other achievments of audiovisual capitalism is stricly more interesting for childrens then mother-father relations. The task of materialist philosophy — to reinforce this desire articulation toward desire to entertain with all planetary technospere in its reassembling — that is in other worlds desire of permanent revolution as object-cause of desire. Mother-father as objects is obsolete as too boring and less interactive.

5. Contradiction between bourgeois ideologies and contemporary science world-vision. Finally, we should to notice that all ideologies now is is failed process. Liberalism contradicts patriotism and vice versa, both of them contradict in part the various religions, which also contradict each other, and all together are relics of magical obscurantism. We needn’t take into concideration all this ideologies. We must say only one thing: there in scientific socialism — but there is no and never will scientific capitalism, scientific patriotism, scientific christianism, scientific astrologism, and so on. This is all types of delusion. And we, Vologdanians, are interested in these misconceptions being eradicated from our culture as quickly as possible.

3. Character

In the prospect of two previous parts, proof of existence of Vologda’s philosophy is obvious. Really, we have my philosophy that is conceptually-rich and independent from dogmatic academic environment. Also we have Vologda region that is markuped by five great groups of contradictions that lead late capitalism to its fall. Therefore crossections between social environment of Vologda region and my philosophy that is also has origins in Vologda, is possible.

But if you read this words now in Vologda, therefore this crossection not only possible, but the real, because your brain is the point of assemblage of absolute materialism ideas and Vologda social environment!

Therefore all previous discurs is an introduction to final performative enunciation, that sublates it, and establish disposition of conceptual characters on the plane of consistency. Let’s clarify, what is conceptual character:

Character is personification of subject as regularity of switch of regimes of functioning of desiring machines.

In this definition folded all Deleuzian philosophy. Primary, machines, that defines as cut-flows, is universally-first level of possibilization of actual reality. I say "universally-first" because axis of assemblage divides matter on any level of organization as actual-virtual and real-possible, and in this division machines as cuts of flows will always first actual level of possibilization for the flows that they consists. Plane of consistency in Deleuzian ontology is dimension of Body without organs, universally-first level of possibilization of virtual reality, that is symmetrical to machines as cut-flows. In other words, body without organs defines as regime functioning off some set of desiring machines.

Finally, subject defined as mode of switching of functioning regimes of set of machines — or, in other words, algorithm of assemblage.

Personification of the subject is presentation of multiple impersonal combination of regular and stochastic dependencies of change of functioning as one, conscious operationally-closed structure that is identical to itself.

Beyond your and any other person — is impersonal material assemblages, and nothing else. So, what is the difference between the subjects and their personification? As Mallarme said: "Nothing will take place but the place except perhaps a constellation". (По-русски звучит сильнее: Ничто, кроме места, не будет иметь места!) Moving matter, the Nature itself — is ultimate definition of the Subject of any process.

That is absolute knowledge and absolute truth, that the French twister Meillassoux was afraid to express in his pretentious treatise:

Materia cogitat me, ergo Ego sunt vacua forma;

Materia fluant in formas, constituas Ego ex actum.

All subjects — is points of assemblage that is defined by the forces of attraction and repellation. And there is a difference between apositions — mode of force combination. My position — to combine meanings, to produce concepts, to send result to friends; your position — to receive message, to understand it, to transmit them for next subject. And there is possible third position — to accept my and your messages, to compare them, to produce next with some modification.

It is memetic process of extension of meaning system — endless process of reproduction Culture — eternally new materialist Culture that will flow over the ruins of broken judeo-christian capitalist society.

So, in third approximation, Vologda’s philosophy is performatively established in this textual enunciation that is present for multitude of vologdanians auditory.

Impersonalized characters of deterritorialization and reterritorialization on the edge of global communism, that is coming.

Conclusion

Now we know: Vologda’s philosophy exist, at last exist. What’s next? What is consequences of this point?

Primary it is a crashing of a myth of Distance, according to wich philosophy and other Historical events always happend somewhere else, not only with us, here and now. But matter that consists us suggest situation by the other way: hic Rhodus, hic salta, Mr. Artist!

That is dialectic of a jumping over threshold that is need some point of repulsion to start the movement of deterritorialization. And there three tresholds on our way: ideological, social, ontological. Jump over ideological delusions of magic, relegion and humanism that destroy our intellect; jump over worldwide capitalist system that make us poor and isolated; jump over human condition — hated condition of mortality, poverty and stupidity. Our common aim — scientific understanding, common property by means of production and immortalizing overassembling — condition of endless changeability, outlined in my Nomadology Manifesto.

The society is entering into the age of change. Old structures and ideologies is falling, and new is emerging. Now is the best time to enlight the masses of multitude, i.e. vologdanians auditory. We need to reinforce our agitation; and after that — reinforce it anew and anew — until our ideas do not reach worldwide cultural hegemony, and all ideological lie and delusions will buried.